STORY: "Why does the state still want to kill William Jerome Manning?," by R.L. Nave, published by the Jackson Free Press on April 29, 2015.

PHOTO CAPTION: "Willie Jerome Manning was recently exonerated in the murders of two
Starkville women in 1992. Now, will the discredited science used to
convict him in a separate case, in which he has always maintained his
innocence, lead to his freedom?"

GIST: "Although
the Miller-Steckler murder certainly matched the Jordan-Jimmerson
slayings in heinousness, many believe the evidence against Manning's
involvement is just as shaky if not more so. The
week of his scheduled execution, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
admitted that its forensic expert erred in testimony during Manning's
original trial. In a letter to Allgood, who prosecuted Manning, U.S.
Justice Department officials stated "that testimony containing erroneous
statements regarding microscopic hair comparison analysis was used" in
Manning's case. The
Mississippi Supreme Court halted the execution over objections from
Hood. Since then, the science of hair comparison and law enforcement's
reliance on it to obtain convictions, including of Manning, has come
under scrutiny. A
recent analysis by The Washington Post concluded that the FBI's hair
analysis was used in thousands of cases. Last week, the Justice
Department and FBI admitted that the practice went on for two decades
despite the existence of data questioning the veracity of hair testing,
which involves comparing hair samples under a microscope. Information
from The Innocence Project shows that of the 329 wrongful convictions
that DNA evidence has helped reverse, some 20 percent of them also
involved hair analysis. Tucker
Carrington, founding director of the Mississippi Innocence Project and
law professor at the University of Mississippi, told the Daily Beast
last week that he believes the state wrote Manning off a long time ago
and had no interest in seeing that he received justice. "'Who
gives a f*ck about this guy? He's already condemned. We know he's the
type of person who's capable of doing this. It's him,'" Carrington said
they thought. The
FBI has offered to conduct DNA testing in the Steckler-Miller case on
Manning's behalf. Voisin, Manning's attorney in both cases, said several
items have been sent to a lab in Houston, Texas, for analysis. (Hood
has said that no serological evidence from the victims' fingernail
scrapings or semen on the vaginal swabs from the rape test kit exists
for a DNA test to identify). Voisin
said the timing of the testing and issuing of results is up to the lab
and the FBI. In the meantime, an effective moratorium on the death
penalty has been in place for two years in Mississippi due to problems
with prosecutions and execution procedures."

See Innocence Project release: Willie Manning has spent over 20 years on death row
in Mississippi for two double-murders which he has consistently
maintained he did not commit. In 2013, the FBI announced that their
expert gave testimony in one of Manning’s cases containing erroneous
statements regarding microscopic hair comparison analysis. The
announcement prompted the state to halt Manning’s execution only five
days before it was scheduled to take place.

Last week, a judge threw out the other murder cases. A key
witness—Kevin Lucious—had told police he saw Manning enter the victims'
apartment from his own apartment, but police found that the apartment
where Lucious claimed to live was vacant at the time of the crime. The
building manager also did not have him listed as a resident. However,
Manning remains on death row, awaiting possible execution for the other
set of murders. To compensate for their erroneous testimony, the FBI offered to
conduct DNA testing on Manning’s behalf. Manning’s attorney says that
several items have been sent to a lab in Houston for analysis. It is not
known how long the testing will take. Meanwhile, Mississippi has halted all scheduled executions in the
state due to concerns over execution procedures. This month, two death
row inmates filed a lawsuit arguing that the risks of excruciating pain
and torture during an execution violates their constitutional protection
from cruel and unusual punishment."

Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.I
have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible
years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr.
Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of
Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"
section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It
can be found at:http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmithInformation on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.htmlI look forward to hearing from readers at:

COMMENTARY: Joan McEwen: Wrongfully convicted Ivan Henry should win the right to sue," published by the Province on April 30 2015. (Joan McEwen is a Vancouver-based labour arbitrator, who authored, Innocence on Trial: The Framing of Ivan Henry, which has been nominated for The Arthur Ellis Awards for Excellence in Canadian Crime Writing.)

GIST: "If I’m right, the Supreme Court of Canada will rule
Friday that wrongly convicted Ivan Henry has the right to sue the Crown
for a breach of the Charter — no-one can be deprived of life, liberty
and security of the person “except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice.” Henry’s lawyers argued in November that the Crown failed
to disclose at trial a raft of potentially exculpatory information,
including contradictory victim statements; the recovery of spermatozoa
from some of the victims; and the fact that Donald McRae, a prolific
sexual predator, had been a suspect. As the law now stands, a wrongly convicted person must
prove “malicious prosecution” — namely, an intentional abuse or
perversion of the system of criminal justice for ends it was not
designed to serve. In setting that high bar 25 years ago, the highest court
in the land said that it would be sufficient to ensure that the Crown
would not be hindered in “the proper execution of its important public
duties.” The court was right; only one case has succeeded since. However, should the Supreme Court of Canada rule in
Henry’s favour, the need for proving malice will, at least in cases of
wrongful conviction, be gone. Instead, any wrongly convicted person will
simply be required to establish, at the very most, a “marked departure”
from the standards expected of prosecutors within the profession. In practical terms, what if any impact would such a
decision have on Henry himself? From a legal perspective, precious
little. While lawyers wrangle about the law’s niceties, Henry remains
penniless, hoping that justice — the cold, hard cash kind — will occur
before he dies. Sentenced as a dangerous offender in 1983 for 10 sex
crimes he did not commit, Henry spent 27 years in prison before being
acquitted — found “not guilty” — by the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2010.
Arguing that he has not proven his factual innocence, the state has yet
to pay him a dime in compensation. Yet who
among us could establish — if charged with a
serious crime — that we are innocent? Absent DNA (in Henry’s case, the
police “lost” the semen samples), an ironclad alibi (the police and
Crown failed to investigate his alibi statement) and/or the confession
of the actual perpetrator (a man who went on to commit 25 to 50 reported
rapes after Henry was behind bars), proving actual innocence is well
nigh impossible. So much for the presumption of innocence, that “golden
thread” supposedly running through our criminal justice system. The problem is that, once lost, that state of innocence is
seemingly impossible to recover, no matter how reprehensible the
behaviour of police and the Crown."

Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.I
have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible
years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr.
Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of
Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"
section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It
can be found at:http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmithInformation on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.htmlI look forward to hearing from readers at:

STORY: "Five disturbing things you didn't know about forensic "science," by Jordan Smith, published by"the Intercept" on April 24, 2015;

GIST: "Last week The Washington Post revealed that in 268 trials dating back to 1972, 26 out of 28 examiners within the
FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit “overstated forensic
matches in a way that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent” of
the cases. These included cases where 14 people have since been either
executed or died in prison. The hair analysis review — the largest-ever post-conviction review of questionable forensic evidence by the FBI — has been ongoing since 2012.
The review is a joint effort by the FBI, Innocence Project and the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The preliminary
results announced last week represent just a small percentage of the
nearly 3,000 criminal cases in which the FBI hair examiners may have
provided analysis. Of the 329 DNA exonerations to date, 74 involved flawed hair evidence analysis. While these revelations are certainly disturbing — and the
implications alarming — the reality is that they represent the tip of
the iceberg when it comes to flawed forensics. In a landmark 2009 report,
the National Academy of Sciences concluded that, aside from DNA, there
was little, if any, meaningful scientific underpinning to many of
the forensic disciplines. “With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis …
no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to
consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a
connection between evidence and a specific individual or source,” reads
the report. There is one thing that all troubling forensic techniques have in
common: They’re all based on the idea that patterns, or impressions, are
unique and can be matched to the thing, or person, who made them. But
the validity of this premise has not been subjected to rigorous
scientific inquiry. “The forensic science community has had little
opportunity to pursue or become proficient in the research that is
needed to support what it does,” the NAS report said.
Nonetheless, courts routinely allow forensic practitioners to testify
in front of jurors, anointing them “experts” in these pattern-matching
fields — together dubbed forensic “sciences” despite the lack of
evidence to support that — based only on their individual, practical
experience. These witnesses, who are largely presented as learned and
unbiased arbiters of truth, can hold great sway with jurors whose
expectations are often that real life mimics the television crime lab or
police procedural. But that is not the case, as the first results from the FBI hair
evidence review clearly show. And given the conclusions of the NAS
report, future results are not likely to improve. What’s more, if other
pattern-matching disciplines were subjected to the same scrutiny as hair
analysis, there is no reason to think the results would be any better.
For some disciplines the results could even be worse. Consider the
examples below:

1. Bite-mark analysis is based on two falsehoods and has wrongfully convicted at least 24 people; (Elaboration);

2. Dexter lied to you about blood splatters; They sew chaos and confusion. (Elaboration)'

3. Worn shoes and tires can land you on death row, but there’s no evidence they’re unique. (Elaboration);

4. No two fingerprints are alike? That is the question; (Elaboration)

5. The FBI trained an army of local hair-analysis charlatans: "Although it is certainly a good thing that the FBI agreed
to undertake a review of the work of its hair examiners — and then to
clearly and publicly declare the miserable results — there is a deeper
and even more troubling truth about the hair analysis revelations: There
are potentially tens of thousands of additional cases out there that
will not necessarily ever be reviewed. That’s because the FBI examiners
for 25 years provided training to hundreds of hair examiners across the
country — training that included the demonstrably, scientifically-flawed
language that has been exposed in the current, and ongoing FBI case
review.Whether all of the state cases will ever be identified let alone reviewed, remains to be seen. For Timothy Bridges,
the stakes couldn’t be much higher. Bridges was convicted and sentenced
to life in prison for the beating and rape of an 83-year-old woman in
Charlotte, NC, in the spring of 1989. The victim (who died of unrelated
causes before Bridges trial), variously described her attacker and
denied that she was raped. Ultimately, Bridges, who had wavy
shoulder-length hair — which is how the victim once described her
attacker — was charged with the crime. There was no DNA to connect
Bridges to the crime and he was not a match for a bloody palm print
found at the scene (that print was never matched to anyone). But there
were two hairs collected that an FBI-trained examiner testified not only
were “likely” Bridges, but also that there was a very low chance
they could belong to anyone else: The “likelihood of two Caucasian
individuals having indistinguishable head hair is very low,” expert
Elinos Whitlock testified — the very sort of language unsupported by
science and found in the faulty cases identified in the current FBI
review.Bridges appealed his conviction, arguing in part that there was no
scientific basis to Whitlock’s testimony. In 1992, the state appeals
court disagreed: “We find no reversible error,” the court ruled, concluding that testimony by a “properly qualified witness on hair
identification” was admissible.Bridges is currently seeking a new trial and the state is reportedly reviewing the matter. "

The entire story can be found at:

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.I
have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible
years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr.
Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of
Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"
section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It
can be found at:http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmithInformation on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.htmlI look forward to hearing from readers at:

EDITORIAL: "D.C.'s inadequate crime lab," published by the Washington Post on April 29, 2015;

GIST: “Insufficient and inadequate.” That biting assessment of the District’s crime lab by independent auditors puts to rest any suggestion that federal prosecutors overreacted when they stopped sending DNA evidence
to the facility on the grounds that it was making serious mistakes. The
finding also raises the questions of why officials in charge of the lab
were so dismissive of prosecutors’ concerns and what that says about
their ability to remedy the problems. A national accreditation board commissioned by Mayor Muriel E. Bowser
(D) to assess complaints raised by the U.S. Attorney’s Office ordered
the Consolidated Forensic Laboratory to immediately halt all DNA
casework after concluding that analysts “were not competent and were
using inadequate procedures.” ........The work of this lab has a direct
bearing on the fair administration of justice — who goes to jail and who
goes free. Having invested a quarter-billion dollars in a
state-of-the-art crime lab, District residents shouldn’t have to wonder
about the competence of the work or the accuracy of the analysis.........
Among thequestions that need to be answered: why it was federal
prosecutors, and not city officials, who recognized the problems — and
what would have happened if the feds hadn’t noticed."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.I
have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.

The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible
years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr.
Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of
Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"
section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It
can be found at:http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmithInformation on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.htmlI look forward to hearing from readers at:

A
judge has ordered the 12-person jury in the Etan Patz murder trial back
to the deliberation room after the five men and seven women,
deliberating for their eleventh day, sent him a note saying they could
not agree on whether 54-year-old Pedro Hernandez killed the 6-year-old
child in 1979. Jurors
have labored over their deliberations for nearly two weeks, asking for
reviews of exhibits and hours of testimony from key witnesses. Before
they sent the hung jury note, they had asked the judge for a replay of
closing arguments, which would have been a minimum of six hours of
readback. State
Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley hadn't decided on whether to grant
them the testimony before they sent the deadlock note; he later
authorized the readback, which will delay any possible verdict until
later in the week.http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Etan-Patz-Disappearance-Murder-Trial-Pedro-Hernandez-Kidnap-Jury-Verdit-Trial-SoHo-Missing-Children-Milk-Carton-299598341.html

STORY: "Senators urge action on FBI's use of faulty forensic evidence," by reporter Matthew Fleming, published by rollcall.com on April 28, 2015;

GIST: "A group of Democratic senators on Tuesday urged action from the
Justice Department and the FBI in response to a recent FBI study
showing erroneous and invalid testimony in 96 percent of cases analyzed
involving microscopic hair analysis. The study also revealed 32 defendants of the 257 cases found to be
prosecuted on faulty forensic evidence had been sentenced to death. “We are deeply disturbed to learn that hundreds of potentially
innocent defendants were imprisoned or even executed based at least in
part on flawed evidence,” the senators wrote. “We commend the Department
of Justice (“the Department”) and the FBI for voluntarily undertaking
this review. We now request that you take steps to correct the
incredible injustices the review has revealed and to strengthen the
science and standards underpinning forensic science.” The letter calls for a three-pronged response to the study: that the
Justice Department review the use of microscopic hair analysis in
prosecutions by the FBI; that the Justice Department give those who have
been convicted using erroneous microscopic hair analysis evidence a
“full and fair opportunity to challenge their convictions” instead of
simply just being informed of the error; and that the Justice Department
and FBI work with the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology to review the processes and
standards of other disciplines of forensic science to identify
opportunities for “stronger standards, better training, and further
scientific research.”

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.I
have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.

The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible
years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr.
Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of
Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"
section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It
can be found at:http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmithInformation on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.htmlI look forward to hearing from readers at:

"The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the latest
appeal for former Akron Police Capt. Douglas Prade in his 1998 murder
case. The court typically does not issue opinions on the cases they reject.
Justices William M. O'Neill and Paul Pfeifer wanted to hear the case.
Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor recused herself because she was the
Summit County Prosecutor at the time of the original trial. Prade's case will now be returned to Summit County Common Pleas Judge
Christine Croce. She said in October that if the state's top court
rejected Prade's appeal, that she will issue an order either granting or
denying Prade a new trial. Croce could also order a hearing to for prosecutors and defense attorneys to present evidence on the new trial issue...... Prade, now 69, was convicted by a jury in 1998 of killing his wife Margot Prade. The case has been appealed several times since. A Summit County judge exonerated Prade in 2013 because of DNA evidence from someone other than Prade was found on Margot Prade. The 9th Ohio District Court of Appeals reinstated Prade's conviction last year. Croce ordered him back to prison after he was free for about 18 months. The Ninth District, however, reversed that decision, ruling that the evidence was far from conclusive and the common pleas judge abused her discretion. Margo Prade, a 41-year-old physician, was found dead in her minivan
outside her medical office on Nov. 26, 1997. She had been shot six times
at close range, and the killer bit through her lab coat into her arm. Douglas Prade, whom Margo divorced seven months before her death, was
subsequently tried and convicted of aggravated murder, in part because
of expert testimony by a forensic dentist matching him with the bite
mark. Prosecutors also painted a picture of Prade as a stalker who tapped
his ex-wife's phones, verbally abused her, and threatened her. http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2015/04/ohio_supreme_court_rejects_akr.html

The jury deliberating in the murder trial of a man accused of kidnapping and killing 6-year-old Etan Patz in 1979 says it is deadlocked. Jurors have been deliberating since April 15. They sent a note to the
judge Wednesday afternoon saying they have been unable to reach a
unanimous decision in the trial of Pedro Hernandez. The defense argued for a mistrial, saying it was obvious the jury was hung. “Any charge to them at this point, even sending a note in to them
saying, ‘Would you like to try harder?’ is inherently coercive,” said
lawyer Alice Fontier. “We believe that a mistrial is warranted, and any
further proceedings after that are over the strenuous objections of the
defense.”"http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/29/etan-patz-hung-jury/

COMMENTARY: "Gelzinis: Acccused nanny should be allowed to wait trial out from home, by Peter Gelzinis, published by the Boston Herald on April 28, 2015.

GIST: "The
term “re-review” is another way of saying that the initial hyperbolic
assessment of how Rehma Sabir allegedly died, by violent shaking and
blunt force trauma at the hands of her caretaker, will now be examined
in a more clinical light. Perhaps more attention will be paid to
the fact that Rehma had a host of medical issues and for several weeks
prior to her death had been travelling outside the country with her
family and not in McCarthy’s care. The “re-review” in the Irish
nanny case parallels an eerily similar case when Geoffrey Wilson was
charged with the death of his 6-month-old son, Nathan. The same
diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome was made by Alice Newton, whose
assessment of little Rehma formed the basis for McCarthy’s arrest.
Eventually in that case, after a host of defense experts concluded that
the child suffered from a genetic condition, the medical examiner’s
original diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome was changed to natural
causes. After more than two years, there’s no reason why Aisling
Brady McCarthy should not be able to await her trial — if indeed it
happens — at home, rather than in a jail cell."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

I
have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible
years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr.
Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of
Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"
section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It
can be found at:http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmithInformation on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.htmlI look forward to hearing from readers at:

COMMENTARY: "This FBI dog hair scandal should make us question our faith in scientific evidence, " by Natasha Lennard, published by 'Fusion' on April 26 2015. (Natasha Leonard is member of Fusion's news team. She is a former news columnist for Vice, worked as a stringer for the New York Times covering the "occupy" protests, and opinion blogged for Salon.

GIST: "In 1978, Santae Tribble, then 17, was convicted of a murder in D.C.
based on the testimony of two FBI forensics experts. They asserted that
a single hair strand found at the crime scene matched Tribble’s DNA. He
served 28 years in prison before an independent analysis found that the
hair was no match—it was a dog’s hair. Tribble was exonerated, but his case is one among potential thousands
of individuals convicted on the highly questionable FBI hair forensics
practices. As Fusion’s Daniel Rivero reported
this week, “over 95 percent of the cases involving hair evidence that
the FBI has reviewed so far contained flawed testimony—257 out of 268
cases.” Consistently racist and ubiquitously prosecution and conviction
driven, investigators wield the power society accords them as experts,
often with scant regard for consequences of their “facts” for the
condemned. But there’s more than pernicious police work at play here.
There’s a problem—a deep, philosophical problem—of how we think about
science and truth. The FBI witnesses presented their testimony as fact. In Tribble’s
case, it was bullshit—DNA analysis found it was a dog’s hair. But, and
this is crucial, by the scientific paradigms of the day, the hair
forensic testimony was fact. And it got to be a fact, and sent a man to
jail, because the science of the time has purview over the production of
facts. Trusted scientific fields are always regimes of
expertise—systems of authority, hierarchy, and control. And the FBI
witnesses had dominion over facts in that courtroom. As if scientific
knowledge floats above systems of power and oppression.........A near-religious belief in modern science-as-objective truth means
that we view our given terrain of facts, managed and controlled by
experts, as proven, discovered truths. Science doesn’t do this ever:
rather, the power structure we call scientific knowledge determines the
field of what might count as evidence, and the method by which facts are
established. These regimes of expertise, regimes of truth in Michel
Foucault’s terminology, produce the terrain of things that get to be
facts in a given point in time. That’s what I mean when I say that
science produces truth, it does not discover it. We can say things are
true and are scientifically proven—that’s fine, so long as we recognize
that proof and truth always exist within systems, which can and often
should be challenged. In 1978, it got to be fact that the hair at the crime scene belonged
to a 17-year-old black man. In a new regime of scientific truth
production, this was no longer a fact. It was a dog’s hair. This is not
simply a case of the better science of DNA-analysis winning through.
Crucially, groups like the Innocence Project do the work of challenging
the claims made by police and FBI experts. DNA-analysis is the tool du
jour, and an important one, but only in so far as it is wielded as a
weapon against our racist, vicious criminal justice system. If we celebrate DNA-based exonerations as primarily a victory of
scientific progress, we forget that this current science can be used by
pre-existing power structures to control and oppress. DNA-databases, for
example, are a vast work of fact production: the fact of individuals
deemed suspect and criminal in perpetuity. No science does neutral work.........Without improvements in DNA forensic sciences, the FBI’s decades of
hair forensics convictions could not be challenged. And if the set of
facts produced by DNA-analysis means that fewer humans are in cages,
then this is indeed progress to be celebrated. Yet, often the only way
to successfully undo the problematic facts produced by one revered
science is to rely on scientific progress; to find better evidence to
highlight bad evidence, to pull out the dog hairs. So it matters all the
more to recognize that established power structures—within government,
law enforcement and the academy—control the productions of truth which
can condemn a person to prison or death, shielded from responsibility by
pointing to infallible science. Access to scientific expertise is protected and reserved for the
privileged. But there is no mythic force of scientific progress that
will deliver justice. The lesson of the FBI hair scandal is that
authority must be challenged, especially when it’s parading as truth."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

I
have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible
years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr.
Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of
Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"
section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It
can be found at:http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmithInformation on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.htmlI look forward to hearing from readers at:

GIST: "The
entire medical case against an Irish nanny accused of murdering a baby
in her care in the US is to be reviewed, prompting a further delay to
her trial. Aisling Brady McCarthy, originally from County Cavan,
denies attacking one-year-old Rehma Sabir at the baby's home in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. The baby died on 16 January 2013. Prosecution and defence lawyers agreed on Tuesday it should be delayed. Her trial had been due to start next week. At
a hearing at Middlesex Superior Court, Ms McCarthy's lawyer said the
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner was "reviewing the entire case",
including nine medical reports from outside experts. "I think
it's in everyone's interest to allow as much time as they need to
perform a full reconsideration of the case," her lawyer told the court. Ms McCarthy's lawyer also told the court that, in light of the delay, he would be applying for bail at a hearing next week......... The case against Ms McCarthy hinges on the medical evidence and reports, which have been consistently challenged by her lawyers. Central
to the prosecution case will be testimony of child care expert, Dr
Alice Newton, who claims Ms McCarthy violently shook Rehma, causing
blunt force trauma. But the defence have questioned the diagnoses
of shaken baby syndrome and have raised Rehma's previous injuries and
that she was sick much of her young life."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

I
have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible
years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr.
Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of
Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"
section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It
can be found at:http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmithInformation on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.htmlI look forward to hearing from readers at:

STORY: Prosecution dropped in Manning case," by reporter Alex Holloway, published by the Starkville Daily News on April 22, 2015.

GIST: "The state of Mississippi’s case against Willie “Fly” Manning in the
1993 murder of two elderly women has come to a dead end after
Mississippi 16th Circuit Judge Lee Howard approved an order ending the
prosecution Monday in Oktibbeha County Circuit Court. Manning was sentenced to death in 1996 after a jury convicted him of
murdering 90-year-old Alberta Jordan and her 60-year-old daughter,
Emmoline Jimmerson during a robbery on Jan. 18, 1993, in Starkville."

See fascinating Wikipedia account: "Willie Jerome "Fly" Manning (born June 12, 1968) is on death row at Mississippi State Penitentiary,
with two death sentences for a conviction of double murder
(Steckler-Miller murders). He was previously also convicted and
sentenced to death for a second double murder (Jimmerson-Jordan
murders), but the charges against him for these murders were eventually
dropped.........(Jimmerson-Jordan murders): In 1993, 90-year-old Emmoline Jimmerson and her 60-year-old daughter,
Alberta Jordan, were murdered during an attempted robbery at their
apartment in Starkville. They had been beaten and their throats were
slashed. In 1996 Manning was convicted of their murder, and sentenced to
death.[29] The state's key witness, Kevin Lucious,[30] has been serving two life sentences without parole in St. Louis, Missouri, since the mid-1990s, for murder convictions there.[31]
Lucious testified that he saw Manning enter the Jimmerson-Jordan
apartment on the night of the murders; he also testified that Manning
later told him that he had committed the murders."[32]
Lucious was the only eyewitness to testify that he saw Manning enter
the women’s home, and no witnesses said they saw Manning leave that apartment."[33] Lucious formally recanted his testimony in 2011. He also filed
affidavits stating that his statements given to authorities and his
testimony at Manning’s 1996 trial were false, and coerced by authorities
because he was afraid he would be charged with the murders.[34] He said that law enforcement produced the information for him to use when testifying.[35] In a 7-2 decision on February 12, 2015, the Mississippi Supreme Court
said notes made by Starkville police when they knocked on doors at the
complex revealed that the apartment where Lucious claimed to live was in
fact vacant when the crime occurred;[36]
they also showed that neither Lucious nor his girlfriend were resident
in any of the apartments canvassed. The court said police withheld this
information from both the district attorney's office and Manning's
defense attorneys. For the majority Justice Randolph wrote: "[T]he State violated
Manning’s due-process rights by failing to provide favorable, material
evidence." He added "There is no question that defense counsel would
have had the opportunity to meaningfully impeach Lucious’s testimony
that he lived in the apartment at the time of the crime and saw Manning
enter the victims’ apartment. Any attorney worth his salt would salivate
at impeaching the State’s key witness using evidence obtained by the
Starkville Police Department."[37 The Mississippi Supreme Court's 7-2 decision granted Manning a new trial for this case,[38] but the charges against him were dropped on April 20 2015. ( Outstanding Steckler-Miller murder charges): Jon Steckler, 19, and Tiffany Miller, 22, two students at Mississippi State University
in Starkville were kidnapped from the street in front of Steckler's
fraternity house on December 11, 1992. About an hour later, a motorist
found Steckler shot in the back of the head and left for dead by the
side of a road, having been run over by Miller's car, a Toyota MR2.[1]
When law enforcement officers arrived, they found Miller's body in
nearby woods. She had been shot twice, in the forehead and mouth.[2] Steckler died shortly thereafter. In the morning, Miller's car was found near the MSU campus.[3] Also that morning, one of Steckler's fraternity brothers, John Wise,
found his car had been burglarized. The trial of Manning included
testimony that he possessed and also tried to sell items stolen from the
Wise burglary. One of the items stolen was a gas station token.[4] A very similar token was found at the scene of the killings.[5]
Also stolen was a black leather bomber jacket that was later recovered
from Manning's girlfriend who testified at trial that Manning had given
it to her; and a portable CD player, which was traced by its serial
number from Wise to a pawn shop in Jackson. The person who pawned it,
Gaylon Hall, testified that he obtained it from Manning.[6]
Ginger Wallace testified that she saw Manning wearing a leather jacket
and in possession of a gold class ring and a watch similar to
Steckler's.[7] Prosecutors said that Manning had a record of convictions for theft and other crimes and had recently been paroled.[8] Manning said that he did not commit the murders, and that he was at a club on the night of the murders."[9] He stated that the property he was selling was stolen by someone he did not know,[10] Manning was convicted of the murders of Steckler and Miller after a jury trial; the jury deliberated for one hour.[11] Manning was sentenced to death on November 8, 1994." [12] Mr. Manning's lawyers argued that some of the trial witness testimony
contradicted known facts. They also contended that Manning’s former
girlfriend, a key witness, was granted a favorable plea deal on fraud
charges, in addition to almost $18,000, to reward her for testifying for
the prosecution, arrangements which were not fully disclosed to the
trial jury."[13]
Manning's lawyers alleged that she also tried to implicate Manning when
she asked him leading questions that were secretly recorded by
officials and not disclosed to defense attorneys."[14] Manning said that at his trial the prosecutor, Forrest Allgood,
illegally dismissed as potential jurors African Americans who read
African American magazines, on the grounds that these were liberal
publications."[15] Manning’s former girlfriend, said she had once seen Mr. Manning
firing a gun into a tree. An F.B.I. firearms expert testified that
bullets found in the tree had been fired from the same gun as the
bullets used in the murders. However, this testimony was later
discredited. Issues were found with an FBI firearms examiner who
testified in the case. A US Justice Department letter stated: “The
science regarding firearms examinations does not permit examiner
testimony that a specific gun fired a specific bullet to the exclusion
of all other guns in the world. The examiner could testify to that
information, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, but not
absolutely.[16]
He added, "As with any process involving human judgment, claims of
infallibility or impossibility of error are not supported by scientific
standards."[17] As well as the firearms letter, the FBI and U.S. Department of
Justice sent other letters. These stated that an FBI examiner had
misrepresented his findings about hair fibers,[18]
found in Miller’s car, when he concluded that the hair came from an
African American. The two victims were white, but Manning is black. This
hair sample was the only physical evidence that connected Manning to
the murder scene. The authorities stated, "We have determined that the
microscopic hair comparison analysis testimony or laboratory report
presented in this case included statements that exceeded the limits of
science and was, therefore, invalid."[19]
Federal officials scrutinized Manning’s case as part of a wider review
of the FBI’s analysis of scientific evidence in thousands of violent
crimes in the 1980s and 1990s, intended to correct errors in forensic
hair examinations before 2000."[20] Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood
responded, "The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the evidence is
so overwhelming as to Manning's guilt [that] even if technologies were
available to determine the source of the hair, to indicate someone other
than Manning, it would not negate other evidence that shows his guilt."[21] Oktibbeha County District Attorney, Forrest R. Allgood, who tried
Manning, said that because only fragments of hair were recovered the FBI
hair expert, Chester E. Blythe, had not been able to match Manning to
the crime-scene hairs. According to Allgood the FBI’s admission of the
error was therefore irrelevant."[22] Allgood added that Manning’s call for DNA testing was probably a delaying tactic. Representatives from the Innocence Project supported DNA testing,
saying that it had exonerated even prisoners with seemingly strong
evidence against them. Similarly, one of the dissenting judges, Justice
James W. Kitchens, wrote “whatever potential harm the denial seeks to
avert is surely outweighed by the benefits of ensuring justice by the
scientific analysis of all the trace evidence.” Manning pointed out that multiple fingerprints found in Miller's car
matched neither him nor the two victims. There were indications of
sexual assault on Ms. Miller, but analysis of a rape kit at the time did
not reveal evidence of seminal fluid.[23] Manning alleged that DNA testing could be done."[24]
Benjamin Russell, from the organization, Mississippians Educating for
Smart Justice, said that physical evidence from the crime scene included
hair found in both victims’ hands, scrapings from under the victims’
nails, and hair fragments found in the car. He added that modern DNA
testing, unavailable when the murders occurred, could determine
Manning’s guilt or innocence and probably identify the person who
committed the murders.[25]Mr Manning’s lawyers stated "A finding by the circuit court that
Manning's conviction in the Brooksville Gardens case was procured on the
basis of false testimony would also be relevant to the claims in this
case (the college students), because it would show a pattern of reliance
on testimony procured unfairly.".[26] On May 7, 2013, in an 8-1 ruling, the Mississippi Supreme Court granted a last-minute stay of execution to Manning.[27]
On July 25, 2013, the same Court reversed its earlier 5-4 ruling
preventing the testing of the fingerprints and DNA evidence. The new
ruling, which was unanimous, allowed Manning to request analysis of
both.[28]

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

I
have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible
years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr.
Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of
Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"
section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It
can be found at:http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmithInformation on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.htmlI look forward to hearing from readers at:

About Me

My interest in forensic pathology began with my Toronto Star investigative reporting into once famed since disgraced former doctor Charles Smith. I began this Blog after retiring from the Star in 2006 in order to follow the aftermath into the independent Goudge inquiry into many of Smith's cases. I have now begun to focus on cases involving flawed forensic science no matter where they occur (the recent Amanda Knox prosecution in Italy, for example) and am fascinated by the interest in the Blog from people in countries throughout the world. In another development, my interest in "junk science" "pseudo-experts" and the miscarriages of justice they all too often cause has drawn me deeply into the on-going U.S. death penalty debate where so many troubling cases involve issues relating to DNA and other developments in the world of forensic science. For all of this I rely on my experience as a reporter at the Toronto Star, my work as a lawyer in Ontario's criminal courts, and my abhorrence of injustice. Please send cases and developments which may be of interest to this Blog to hlevy15@gmail.com. Read on! Harold Levy.